I had a lot of "first reactions" to this movie. For example, and in no particular order:
1) How did they ever find backers to bankroll this movie? 1 hr 42 minutes of almost no dialogue, following a mute around some very unpicturesque neighborhoods. Yes, it is at times very moving, other times wonderfully funny. But I'm amazed anyone thought this movie had ANY chance of selling enough tickets to turn a profit. I'm certainly glad it was made, but also very surprised.
2) I found this movie very cynical. (That's not a criticism, by any means; just an observation.) The folks in the neighborhood are almost uniformly cruel, which of course makes Gigot's small kindnesses stand out that much more. Even at the end (SPOILER ALERT), at Gigot's "funeral," the neighbors are all extremely hypocritical. And when they then discover that Gigot is still alive, they go back to their miserable old selves. It's not the sort of thing I would have expected from 1960s Hollywood, but I found it all that much more interesting as a result.
3. I was often struck by Gene Kelly's success in capturing little details of everyday street life in an unglamorous part of Paris. Though An American in Paris was, as far as I know, all shot on MGM sets in Hollywood, it seems to have awakened a real interest in Paris for Kelly. This is not a picture-postcard Paris. Actually, the way it was shot very often reminded me of The Red Balloon (1956), which was shot in the same sort of poor Paris neighborhoods. There is also the same sense that innocence will get hurt in such neighborhoods.
4. I was surprised, and pleased, that this was not a lot more sentimental. Gleason and Skelton, two of the mainstays of TV in the 1950s and early 60s, often indulged in excessive - for my tastes - sentimentality in their mime sketches. I thought Gene Kelly did a good job of keeping the movie from spilling over into that. In the same respect, the prostitute is not "redeemed and reformed" at the end. In its own way, it's more realistic than I would have expected coming from Gleason.
5. The music is very noticeable throughout, sometimes for better, sometimes not. But the sound of that music evoked in me memories of the Jackie Gleason Show, which I haven't seen in half a century. He must have used the same arranger, to get that sound with the strings. Very distinctive. To anyone who watched American TV in the 1960s, it immediately says "Jackie Gleason."
I haven't seen the remake with W.H. Macy. I understand it's no longer set in Paris. But then, the Paris Gigot portrays had largely vanished by the time The Wool Cap was made. "Les 30 glorieuses," as the French call the three decades after the War, renovated much of the squalor that you see in the movie; you would have to go out into the banlieue to find an equivalent, and then the population would no longer look "French" to Americans - or, in a different sense, to some right-wing modern Frenchmen.
In short, this is a very enjoyable 1h42. If you think most of humankind is cold and hypocritical, you will find plenty of material to support your views. (The scene in the bar where the men get Gigot drunk so that he will make a fool of himself I found very painful to watch. It was well done, yes, but very painful.) If you think dogs and cats are cute, you'll be happy as well. (The use of the cat to lead the camera around in parts of the movie, which again recalls The Red Balloon, is really very clever.) If you're looking for romantic views of Paris, or romance, for that matter, you won't find it here.
You will find a good story well performed and well directed. It's not Citizen Kane, but I've sat through a lot worse without complaining.
-------------------------------
Just a note after a second viewing. This really is one fine movie. Very cynical, yes, presenting a very cynical view of most of mankind. But a very moving film. Gleason's performance really is remarkable.
6 out of 9 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
